Talk:Wicca/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Is anyone interested in the following article nominated for deletion?

Looking for participants in the the discussion of List of religions once classed as cults cairoi 14:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay For Pete's Sake

We need to add more to this article. Its a growing religion and I don't know how to edit the Wicca list that is on the right.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante Asgard (talk • contribs)

BB, Dante. You can edit the column on the right at Template:Wicca--however, all editors need to be aware that this is a template, and it requires specialized editing to keep things in the template. See Help:Template for help editing and making templates. Justin Eiler 03:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Following the addition of the {wicca} template there have been several repositionings of the pentagram image, and the template has been removed and re-added. I don't mind particularly whether the template is there or not, but if it is, we have to ensure that it and the pentagram image co-exist nicely. My screen is 1280x1024 and I keep having to reposition the image so it doesn't cause a huge white space in the article! The last time this happened, I instead reverted back to not having the template, since some reasoning had accompanied its removal, but there was no comment whatsoever accompanying its addition back again. If no comment is given when you revert someone else's edit, you're liable to ruffle a few feathers. If you disagree on whether the template should be there, please enter the discussion. Cheers, Fuzzypeg 20:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, Dante Asgard has done it again, and again not left any kind of a comment. I'm not sure what normally happens in this situation, but I'm going to assume he just hasn't figured out how to use page-history or discussion pages yet, and I'll revert his edit again. Hopefully soon he'll join the party and actually try to explain what he's doing. I've left a message on his talk page alerting him to this. ;-D Fuzzypeg 12:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This article still needs some major rearranging

This is quite a big article, and, as was inevitable, it's starting to suffer from having had lots of small edits and no big rearrangements. Lets not lose sight of how the whole thing reads, from start to finish.

I would like to see Wiccan Beliefs and practices (and possibly Morality) shifted up above all the talk of history, possibly just after Definition. Beliefs and morality are the most important elements of the religion, and probably the most interesting for general readers to read about. It doesn't matter if there are a few mentions of historical aspects in these sections, just as long as we can paint a vivid initial picture before we get down to the nitty-gritty with the history/scholarly-debate stuff.

I'm also wondering whether a few passages could be moved into footnotes. Does anyone know how to have separate footnotes and references (if this is possible). Should we even separate the two? If not, should we change the "References" heading to "Notes"? (I know we already have a "Notes" section, but it's pretty derelict.)

Comments, suggestions, criticisms much appreciated. Fuzzypeg 14:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism is a featured article. We may wish to examine its layout. Jkelly 17:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I like their Core concepts section, with easily navigable subdivision into key sections. Looking through our article, I envisage a "Core concepts" section with the following sub-sections:

• Wicca as a magical religion: the religion is a form of witchcraft (mentioning those who dispute this); spells, mystical approach; all Wiccans are priesthood, rather than there being a congregation/clergy structure.
• Wiccan views on divinity: The Goddess and God, our view of universe and life, elements, angels, etc. Probably mention the wheel of the year and our inner connection with the outer seasonal tides here. Possibly ethics in this section, but probably better in their own section (next):
• Morality: ethics.
• Secrecy and initiation: Including discussion of the criticisms of these institutions.
• Organisation within Wicca: Coven structure and autonomy, priesthood/high priesthood, coven size, training, different traditions, book of shadows. Discuss solitary wicca too.
• Ritual: times and types of rituals (seasonal, lunar), ritual attire (discuss skyclad), setting (temple, outdoors), tools.

Then we have history, ("origins" and "later developments", much like we have currently), and etymology, discussion of persecution, legal status, etc. Hopefully there's enough mention of questionable history in the definition section that we can move the "Origins" section this far down in the article. I've looked through the article, and these sections seem to cover everything.

If I do this, it's going to be a fairly big rearrangement. My background is fairly traditional Alexandrian Craft, and I'm not used to representing popular views of the Craft. If I get anything wrong, please put it down to ignorance, rather than malice, and jump in and correct me. To the glory of the Goddess, and Truth and Beauty. Fuzzypeg 14:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a not to say I've been incredibly busy for several weeks, but I haven't forgotten about the proposed rearrangement. Hopefully I'll have a bit more time soon. Fuzzypeg 02:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've made the first rearrangements. Unfortunately the revision diffs are abominable to read at first — there are a couple of long lines in the reference section without white-spaces that make the diff columns massively wide. The main (initial) edit of the rearrangement has almost no rewording, just shifting text around and adding headings — the exception being the intro to the "Core concepts" section. After that changes are more localised and easier to diff. As it currently sits, the article is nowhere near perfect, but it's not much worse than before, and possibly better, and I need to sleep. It's a good place to let it sit and ruminate for a while. Anyone else wanting to continue where I left off, or correct my mistakes, have fun! Fuzzypeg 16:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

I just archived old discussions. Note that I did something unusual. Not being sure that a discussion about Gerald Gardner as a Mason was not still ongoing, I moved it to (the neglected) Talk:Gerald Gardner, instead of to Talk:Wicca/Archive 4. If this is inconvenient for any involved party, I trust that you will do the correct thing. Jkelly 22:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Woops...

Sorry guys, I'm new, didn't know about the whole comment thing. I've been a newb on many things and as I grow more into it I learn each place has the same single thought "Nothing more annoying then a Noob"

I just thought that since its a growing religion I should add more too it. I was going to do pretty much the same thing for the Rastafari Movement.

I'll do what I can to make up for it but I think I've done enough damage already. ~Dante

History Skew

Just read through this article in it's entirety whilst studying spin-off religions from Freemasonry, the linkage of the 'traditional' ritual and most aspects of Wicca can be found identically in Freemasonry yet for some reason the only reference to the Craft is the allegation that Gardner was a 'Co-Freemason', which he was not. He was a Freemason who broke off and started a cult, just as Hubbard, Smith, et al did.

Perhaps clarifying the origin of the ritual and the history of the Craft in a factual rather than a romantic sense would be of more benefit to the Wikipedian community? This is an encyclopedia, therefore clinical, so all this fanciful hubub of where Gardner -claims- the religion takes it's intricacies from have thoroughly been flooded out by the factual derivisions from Freemasonry that have become rather visibly intertwined with it's lore. 211.30.80.121 00:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If you can prove, with actual citations, other than Bracelin, which Lodge GBG was a member of, and actually come up with something isn't contradictory (like listing a lodge name and number that do not currently go together), the encyclopedia would benefit. As for the issues you have regarding Gardner's claims, they are no more and no less valid than the unverifiable claims of any other religion.--Vidkun 00:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Template?

We should add a template, I've been working on Template:Wicca thanks to Fuzzypeg. Uh thats all. I'm consulting people of all traditions that are verifiable. So no worries there...

Blessin's! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante Asgard (talk • contribs)

Don't forget that this is Wikipedia, and all editors have ownership over this article (or none, depending on how you see it), not just Wiccans of verifiable tradition. The article may be about us, but it's not exclusively for us or by us. I was just recently trying to break up a fight on Talk:Freemasonry, and saying that if the article there is obviously written from a purely Masonic perspective, and in Masonic language, it makes it seem less authoritative, rather than more. In fact, it may be those of "unverified" tradition who contribute more than me on the subject of Wicca, because I'm rather reluctant to go publishing trade secrets. I certainly won't remove material, and I am likely to correct information that's wrong, but there's a lot that I'm not going to be the first to add... ;-D

Anyway, happy editing with the template. I think if we're going to have a template, it would be nice if it quite densely incorporates a lot of information. I was impressed with the {{ancient egypt}} template (as seen at Egyptian hieroglyph), which fits a lot of information in a small space and doesn't cause too many problems with the rest of the article layout. Have a look, see what you think. Oh, and don't forget to sign your discussion posts with ~~~~. Cheers, Fuzzypeg 12:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we please, please get a stable version of the template before rendering it in the article? Thanks. Jkelly 19:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

external links

80.13.246.6 and 87.88.103.81, you keep adding links to what, from its own url, is obviously a blog. I do not believe it adds anything encyclopedic to the article, and i have now reverted it twice. If you want to put it back in, please, see please see WP:EL and m:When should I link externally first, and then make your case here on the talk page for why we should have that link.--Vidkun 16:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we get a semi-protect on this? the two numbered accounts listed above are link-spamming with their Kolob Order webpage all over wiki.--Vidkun 12:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that you should add www.avalonia.co.uk to your links section. They have a huge resource of Wiccan related articles and also run an excellent open circle in London for people interested in Wicca which is attended by between 40 - 80 people every month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:80.189.80.62 (talk • contribs)

As a Wiccan with more traditional leanings, I would like to distance this article from any website that a) offers "Wiccan" correspondence courses, and b) charges money for them. There are plenty of other good sites on the internet, packed with information. Fuzzypeg 06:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with fuzzypeg. - vanis 19:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, we would like to add an external link to two interviews with Phyllis Currott about Wicca. They describe wicca and her experience in thoughtful and interesting ways. Here's the links: "What? No flying monkeys? and "Longing for love". These interviews are really personalable and interesting and I think add some warmth to the page. - Open Grove Claudia

I can't get either of these to play (error message says "Access Denied"). It may be a problem with my proxy server or my setup of RealPlayer. Do they work for anyone else?

I took the liberty of correcting the first URL above which was mis-typed. Fuzzypeg 03:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that! That's kind of dumb of me! Thank you Fuzzypeg for fixing it! What do you think? Is it OK to add them?

I haven't yet managed to get them to play. They don't work for me. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Veteran's Headstone issues

Actually, this comment is incorrect: "(This policy came under attack when Patrick Stewart, a Wiccan soldier, was killed in action in Afghanistan in 2005. His widow has pressed for the inclusion of a pentacle to memorialize him at the Northern Nevada Veterans Memorial Cemetery.". The policy came under attack when PFC Abe Kooiman died in 2002. One Witchvox article about it. I should know, i am a member of the Pagan Veterans' Headstone Campaign.--Vidkun 13:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The Kooiman case is mentioned in the newspaper article that I linked to in writing the passage you cite. I didn't mean to imply that the Stewart case was the first time the policy had come under attack. That case seemed worth mentioning because, unlike Kooiman, the Stewart dispute seems to have triggered a review that might change the policy. JamesMLane t c 14:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Kooiman case has had a number of congress-critters interested in it for a while, and a letter writing campaign over it. What happened was that the National Cemetaries Board went and changed their policies, and added new requirements, around the time Rosemary Kooiman applied. After that policy change, a few other organizations managed to get their symbols approved, while Rosemary was told her request was still being reviewed. It's been a big issue, at least since '02, and the Stewart case is a continuation of the struggle. Again, I should know, as I see postings from Mrs. Stewart on one of the PVHC discussion lists.--Vidkun 14:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

If you think the current text conveys an unintended meaning by mentioning Stewart, feel free to change it to something like: "This policy has come under attack from relatives of Wiccan soldiers; as of 2006, the government is reported to be considering a change." The same citation would support that statement. The only point on which I feel strongly is that we should cite a general-interest news service in preference to Witchvox or another Wiccan-oriented source. JamesMLane t c 15:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)